Politics, Politics, Politics

Looks like old Obama found his patsy to cover the illegal spying.

wrong again!
do you EVER get your facts straight?
she was his security advisor at the time.... if there was illegal activity going on she has the right to ask to have the names unmasked to give the president!
what happens after that..../
spmeone leaked the names... doesn't mean it was her....
 
Not sure I'm with you here ... last night I was watching my Tar Heels become Nat'l Champions!

GO 'HEELS!
sorry I thought you were from SC!
ok fine go heels
classy coach!... good replacement for the Dean!
I didn't care for ks at all but liked him there thought he was/is a class act and good coach!
 
AP FACT CHECK: Republicans thwarted high court picks, too

It was the Republican talking point of the Sunday talk shows: If Democrats delay Neil Gorsuch's confirmation to the Supreme Court this week, Republicans said, it would be an affront to history — the first time a nominee to the high court had been filibustered.

True? Only in a narrow sense. Partisanship has denied a Supreme Court seat to a number of nominees, most recently former President Barack Obama's choice for the court last year.

Republicans are advancing their argument about historical precedent to try to soften the ground for a possible change in Senate rules to place Gorsuch on the court. If Republicans now in control of the Senate can't get enough Democrats behind them — it takes 60 votes to end a filibuster — they may shift procedures to require only a simple majority of 51 votes. When then-majority Democrats made that switch for lower-level nominees, Republicans cried foul.

Some comments from the Sunday news programs and the larger historical perspective:

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL, R-Ky.: "No Supreme Court justice has ever, in the history of our country, been stopped by a partisan filibuster, ever." "Fox News Sunday"

SEN. JOHN CORNYN, R-Texas: "This is unprecedented in American history, a partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee." — CBS' "Face the Nation."

THE FACTS: The senators are ignoring their blockade last year of Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the same seat Gorsuch will occupy if he's confirmed this week.

Obama nominated Garland more than a year ago but the Senate's majority Republicans put him on ice, declining to give him a hearing. A filibuster is an unlimited debate that delays a vote, and technically not what stopped Garland. But in effect, Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, said Sunday, Garland became the "granddaddy of filibusters."

McConnell and Cornyn are correct in this sense: If Democrats were to succeed in blocking Gorsuch, it would be a first for the nomination of a judge to join the court. But one previous high court nomination was killed by a filibuster, in 1968. That's when opponents of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas stopped him from being elevated to chief justice.

When McConnell and Cornyn said no one had been stopped by a "partisan filibuster," they surely had that episode in mind. Fortas faced opposition from a coalition of Democrats and Republicans. So his ambitions were thwarted by a bipartisan filibuster.

It's only been since 1949 that nominations have been subject to a potential supermajority requirement under Senate rules. In the 19th century, the Senate used procedural votes or took no action at all on 10 high court nominees who were thwarted. Most had been chosen by so-called accidental presidents — men who ascended to the White House after the death of a president and lacked strong support in Congress.

Find all AP Fact Checks at http://apne.ws/2kbx8bd

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ap-fact-check-gops-selective-history-high-court-185127273--politics.html
 
Don Lemon has taken FAKE NEWS into a whole new realm.

He went on TV last night and said that there is no evidence backing up Trump’s wiretapping claim, even while it has been revealed that Rice was compiling spreadsheets of all communications and passing them around the entire White House.

This is how the media works.

They will just say “oh well, reality isn’t real, so we’re not talking about it.”

Totally insane.

But… it’s falling apart.

No way this is sustainable. It’s just not possible.

You can’t have “a year’s worth of spreadsheets documenting all communications” next to “no spying.”

Anyone trying to make those two things fit together is going to have a psychological breakdown.

The media is officially finished.

The other thing about this illegal spying on U.S. citizens is that Rice was spying on reporters, thats in there too.
Oh my oh my:eek:
giphy.gif

********
This is damage control, pure and simple. These "news channels" are still carrying water for the last administration.

Of course, their efforts are off-set by the fact that their audiences skew towards people at or near retirement age.

But they're all finished, pretty much. You need a microscope to find their audiences. Mostly these news channels, especially the left leaning ones, are just talking to each other.

It isn't 1994 anymore.

c02ca182822f99da24a12f808fdaf1014f87828f_1_600x579.jpg
 
Last edited:
He went on TV last night and said that there is no evidence backing up Trump’s wiretapping claim, even while it has been revealed that Rice was compiling spreadsheets of all communications and passing them around the entire White House.

more fake news
you talk about all these people puttingout fake news and you are the worst!

first there is NO eveidence that of trumps wire tapping claim... he was picked up simply because they monitor anyone they suspect working for the Russian gov... so if you talk to one of those people... you will get recorded or picked up

second all she asked was for the names to be unveiled... which id her job!... so she could inform the pres!
 
screenshot-from-2017-04-03-18-29-18-618x512-png.1214648

Bloomberg:

White House lawyers last month learned that the former national security adviser Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

The pattern of Rice’s requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the government’s policy on “unmasking/spying on citizens” the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not targets of electronic eavesdropping. Normally those names are redacted from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in reports as something like “U.S. Person One.”

____
 
you have posted this one once before.... and it is still fake news!

although it is nice to see you watch CNN... to get the facts.......you just have a hard time keeping the facts straight from fiction...

do you have the phone number for Reality?
although for you I'm sure it's long distance!
 
Last edited:
104352343-comey.1910x1000-618x324.jpg
Washington Times:

The latest in the fast-moving story about Susan Rice’s alleged unmasking of several aides to President Donald Trump’s campaign is that the data request was for “detailed spreadsheets” of intercepted telephone calls.

A former U.S. attorney named Joseph diiGenova told the Daily Caller: “What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals.

That’s quite a bit different than data on Trump being mistakenly swept into a intelligence operation.

The overheard conversations involved no illegal activity by anybody of the Trump associates, or anyone they were speaking with,” diGenova said, to the news outlet. “In short, the only apparent illegal activity was the unmasking of the people in the calls.”

-----------------

And one more tidbit: These spreadsheets were allegedly requested by Rice a year before the 2016 presidential election.

Meanwhile, News has been reporting the unmasked names of Trump’s aides were turned over to officials within the National Security Council and the Department of Defense, as well as to James Clapper, then-President Barack Obama’s director of national intelligence, and to John Brennan, CIA director under Obama.

This is like the worst possible imaginable situation.

But this was SPREADSHEETS drawn up a YEAR BEFORE THE ELECTION.

It looks like every single communication of the entire Trump team was monitored throughout the entire campaign.

Can you even imagine this?

And nevermind the media – all of these government sons of bitches lied under oath.

How on earth can it be considered by anyone to be okay to use a massive spying operation to draw up intelligence reports on political opposition?



8563edc5c5f89d3d4a2cb80500ab2bb4541a6e22.jpg
 
This is like the worst possible imaginable situation

why? If you have American citizens talking to known Russian "spies" you would want to know who and why!

It looks like every single communication of the entire Trump team was monitored throughout the entire campaign

Just an accident or ????? you would think his team would be smart enough to know we monitor everything Russia does over here. If they are dumb enough to call these people and want to be "friendly" it deserves a second and third look!

And nevermind the media – all of these government sons of bitches lied under oath

No, if I remember right they just would not comment on it as it is still an ongoing investigation. And it seems the more they dig the more they find! If it was all on the up and up why all the secret meetings in other countries and other places. Other government's do the same thing we do, they monitor Russia, and those other countries notified our government when they discovered Americans meeting with known Russian operatives.

Trump and his people are just raising hell and trying to divert the attention elsewhere to try and cover their own stupidity! You get involved with bad people and try your hand at espionage you get caught!
spying has been going on for years... just because the people were rich and thought maybe they were above things just got a lesson! The real question should be... did trump dig out all these Russian "friends" or did they come to him and sway him!

bottom line is you play with fire you get burned!
 
Last edited:
OBSERVER

✔@observer

EXCLUSIVE: "On multiple occasions, Rice asked #NSA to do things they regarded as unethical and illegal."

Observer:

As a longtime NSA official who experienced Rice’s wrath more than once told me, “We tried to tell her to pound sand on some things, but it wasn’t allowed—we were always overruled.” On multiple occasions, Rice got top Agency leadership to approve things which NSA personnel on the front end of the spy business refused. This means Congress and the FBI need to investigate here.

-----------------------

Okay, imagine this.

What do you think would happen if, in 2019, the Trump administration requested unmasking of reports for the top Democratic candidates? And he continuously attacked his top rival, while his staff were making unethical and illegal requests from the intelligence services to get information about his rival?

Do you think the media would ignore this like they’re ignoring the Susan Rice scandal?


These people are bold-faced liars. Someone needs to ask a CNN anchor to his face if he thinks it would be fine for Trump to spy on Democratic rivals using the NSA.

jake-tapper-defends-cnn-618x265.jpg


 
Here's how the NEW privacy law reads:

WEBSITE INFORMATION
...The Website collects & stores information that is generated automatically as you navigate through the Website. This aggregate information is collected site-wide, and includes anonymous website statistics. The Website also employs browser cookies to store users' preferences and record session information. "Cookies" are bits of information that are stored by your browser on your had drive. This technology allows for the storage of user preferences, user ID & password, if applicable, and removers you when you take action on the Website. You can turn off the "cookie" function through most stand browser, however, the majority of the features on the Website may not function properly.
...In addition, when you visit the Website, our system automatically collects information such as your web request, Internet Protocol (IP) address, numbers assigned to your computer by your Internet Service Provider (ISP), browser type, browser language, domain names, referring and exit pages and URLs, platform type, number of clicks, clear gifs, internet tags, landing pages, pages viewed and the order of these page views, the amount of time spent on particular pages, network traffic monitoring, active scripting, the date & time of your request and the unique identity of your browser. This information is used to analyze trends, administer the Website, improve the design of the Website, track user movement, and otherwise enhance the services provided.

Other Information
...We may retain any data you provide to us in an email or other inquiry, to track the types of questions we receive, analyze trends, administer the Website and services we offer, improve the design of the Website, and track user movement, and otherwise enhance the service we provide.


Disclosure and Use of Information
...We will comply with any subpoenas, court orders or other legal process for any of the information about you in our possession, and we may use such information to establish or exercise our legal rights, or to defend against legal claims. We reserve the right to disclose your personal information, including data on which pages you have visited, to third parties if we feel it necessary to protect our systems, Website, business, users or others.


...In addition, information about you in our possession may be disclosed as part of any merger, acquisition, sale of company assets, or transition of service to another provider, as well as in the unlikely event of insolvency, bankruptcy, or receivership in which your personal information would be transferred as one of the business assets of the company. We do not guarantee that any entity receiving such information in connection with one of these transactions will comply with all terms of this policy nor shall Company be liable for any security breaches that may occur after the transfer of information.

...We may, at our discretion, disclose your personal information, when deemed necessary or appropriate, to law enforcement or authorized government organizations, to protect our rights or the rights of others, to prevent identity theft and harm to persons or property, to fight fraud, to ensure the integrity of our business, or to otherwise protect the right, property, or safety of Company and our employees or others.

Folks I think the VPN services are going to become quite popular. Time to buy stock in them, maybe!

https://qz.com/948506/how-to-pick-a-vpn-to-keep-your-internet-browsing-secure-and-private/
https://www.extremetech.com/computi...ices-popping-gop-congress-kills-privacy-rules
 
Last edited:
Back
Top